Heck Ted it almost sounds that to you there are only two ways to see things liberal or conservative... I change my mind way too often to be in any party. When I tried both parties I found that both sides had IMO some very stupid thoughts on certain things. Enough to keep me from joining either one. So I stay out of both.

I completely agree that having a two party system comprised of Democrats and Republicans is not ideal, to say the least. Just looking at social issues, one party tries to moralize the genocide of babies and the other is afraid to even bring it up. Having no viable alternative party, one is stuck voting for the lesser of two evils -- which is necessary, unless you adopt the misguided view that your vote is a one-time thing.

We could get rid labels, sure, but it is largely irrelevant. The fact is, neither party is the same as when it first started, or even 50 years ago. For proof, you need only juxtapose John F. Kennedy and Obama; two very different men with ideological incompatibilities galore. Hopefully what you notice is that votes really do matter. Voters have managed to fundamentally change a party in a relatively short amount of time, simply by voting in individuals whose values most closely (though not completely) resemble their own.

That is how democracy works. It requires like-minded individuals to reconcile their small differences and commit to changing society long-term, vote by vote. Overtime, momentum alone will create a shift in ideology no matter what "brand" people identify themselves with. Alternatively, if you are constantly questioning your core values or hoping for a party or individual that completely shares your views, do not be surprised if you find yourself feeling disenfranchised. Expect it.

-

Last edited by Autobon on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:43 pm

Message

Salaris VornModerator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008Posts: 2335Location: New York, USA

Autobon wrote:

Just looking at social issues, one party tries to moralize the genocide of babies and the other is afraid to even bring it up.

Just my observation but this kind of phrasing is exactly one of the problems. It in essence castes one side as looking like nothing more than monsters of the worst kind humanity has to offer and gives a sense that the other side is justified in completely discounting the other side's arguments because they are monsters. If they are pure evil on one point and thus justified in being ignored on that score it becomes easy to question the legitimacy of any of their other points because how can a side that is evil have any ideas worth considering? Which of course leads the side being vilified to just dig their heals in and refuse to listen to whatever the oposition has to say because obviously whatever villified side has to say will fall on deaf ears.

Whether you agree with an oposition's point of view or not terminology that clearly makes one side out to represent evil in it's worst form only encourages fracturing of the country and ensuring that neither side will listen to the other. The two party system is a big problem I'll grant but how we refer to the other side's arguments is just as much a problem. Cast one side as monsters or use terms that dehumanize them and you ensure they will no longer listen to what their critics have to say._________________

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:18 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:

If they are pure evil on one point and thus justified in being ignored on that score it becomes easy to question the legitimacy of any of their other points because how can a side that is evil have any ideas worth considering?

I have not seen this scenario play out as desperately as you have described. Romney, or any Republican that I can think of at the moment, has not mentioned or even alluded to Obama's position on something like abortion, when discussing his other policies. I would need to see some actual evidence of the fact.

For better or for worse, terminology has always played an important role in swaying public opinion, and will continue to do so. Those on the left regularly portray others that have disagreements with them as bigots, extremists, racists, granny killers, hateful, etc. -- observable to a far lesser degree on the right as well. If you - general - insist on engaging someone's tone or language rather then their actual arguments, then be prepared to defend your accusations. Personally, I think its more constructive not to engage in such a futile endeavor.

-

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:31 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1481Location: Soul of Cinder

That's an interesting observation, auto. You often won't see candidates at this stage of an election talking about issues that can be polarizing. Do you think it's because they really want to not be divisive like SV is saying, or is it just to not scare away swing voters, or maybe it's just because they don't want to alienate their own party voters by making policy statements that they will then be held accountable to?_________________The spirit can die when the force that's crushing it is great enough. By raining bullets down on the silent faces, already turned away from the world, you thought you could destroy the face of our truth. But we have faith in a different force. That hopeless hope is what sustains us now. My comrades are more numerous than your bullets, and more patient than your executioners.

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:37 pm

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1652

Salaris Vorn wrote:

Autobon wrote:

Just looking at social issues, one party tries to moralize the genocide of babies and the other is afraid to even bring it up.

Just my observation but this kind of phrasing is exactly one of the problems. It in essence castes one side as looking like nothing more than monsters of the worst kind humanity has to offer and gives a sense that the other side is justified in completely discounting the other side's arguments because they are monsters. If they are pure evil on one point and thus justified in being ignored on that score it becomes easy to question the legitimacy of any of their other points because how can a side that is evil have any ideas worth considering? Which of course leads the side being vilified to just dig their heals in and refuse to listen to whatever the oposition has to say because obviously whatever villified side has to say will fall on deaf ears.

Whether you agree with an oposition's point of view or not terminology that clearly makes one side out to represent evil in it's worst form only encourages fracturing of the country and ensuring that neither side will listen to the other. The two party system is a big problem I'll grant but how we refer to the other side's arguments is just as much a problem. Cast one side as monsters or use terms that dehumanize them and you ensure they will no longer listen to what their critics have to say.

Exactly. Abortion is an issue that will spark strawmen no matter what position you take. If you agree it should be allowed, you believe in infanticide, and if you don't agree, you're trying to dehumanize women. It's a very controversial issue that will always result in hitting nerves._________________Darth Vegas the unwise...

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:41 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751Location: Seattle, Washington

Dog-Poop_Walker. wrote:

Do you think it's because they really want to not be divisive like SV is saying, or is it just to not scare away swing voters

I am guessing that they want as many moderate voters as possible, as you point out. At least that is what I hear from Republicans who advocate for a more financial campaign message as opposed to social. Problem is, they often won't bring it up the latter issue when in office either -- a problem that seems to plague Republicans almost exclusively. Most people vote their wallet, unfortunately.

-

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:59 pm

Message

Corellias DreamKnight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012Posts: 105Location: UK

I think the point that Salaris was making was about discussion of politics in general, not just the specific language used by politicians.

He was quoting Autoban's turn of phrase, and saying that it is an example of language that is emotive, and casts those in favour of abortion as evil monsters etc.

If the quote had been 'one party supports abortion and the other is afraid to bring it up', that is a lot less emotive and demonizing than 'one party tries to moralize the genocide of babies...'.

Abortion happens to be the subject of the example, but the point is equally valid for other topics. Using language like 'diseased perverts' to mean homosexuals, or 'bloated capitalists' instead of businessmen, is the same technique. It doesn't have to be said by politicians - it's just as divisive used on boards like this one.

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:45 pm

Message

Salaris VornModerator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008Posts: 2335Location: New York, USA

Corellias Dream wrote:

I think the point that Salaris was making was about discussion of politics in general, not just the specific language used by politicians.

He was quoting Autoban's turn of phrase, and saying that it is an example of language that is emotive, and casts those in favour of abortion as evil monsters etc.

If the quote had been 'one party supports abortion and the other is afraid to bring it up', that is a lot less emotive and demonizing than 'one party tries to moralize the genocide of babies...'.

Abortion happens to be the subject of the example, but the point is equally valid for other topics. Using language like 'diseased perverts' to mean homosexuals, or 'bloated capitalists' instead of businessmen, is the same technique. It doesn't have to be said by politicians - it's just as divisive used on boards like this one.

this is exactly what I was getting at. When individuals use such divisive, disrepectful terms it is just as damaging as when a politician says it. I would argue that it is more divisive because if a citizen sees that the primary supporters of a politician completely villiffy this citizen's position it won't matter if the politician uses the kindest words possible. The citizen and all other like minded individuals won't like the politician simply because he is taking the side of people who condemn them (and thus will be far less likely to even consider any of that politician's ideas). Why should a voter support a politician (or even a party) whose base shows absoltely no respect for an position that voter supports? More to the point why should members of one side attempt to cooperate on policy issues with the other side that vilifies them and shows them no respect?

In this way it also address the question of who is at fault with the two party system. In this case it is the citizens because they pit themselves against each other leaving politicans no choice but to maintain a stance appealing to whichever side of the polarization their "base" supports while still attempting to moderate it enough to get the middle of the line voters. Look at how a politician could actually get in trouble by being "too moderate" these days and loosing the support of their base that wanted the less moderate position whether it is left or right. Think about it if Romney or Obama took "too moderate" a stance and didn't appear far enough to the right/left they'd loose a lot of support from their respective base and likely loose the election by a landslide. That's because of us, what words we choose when refering to the opinions held by the other side, and how that encourages division rather than unity as a peoples._________________

The video shows a bunch of people being interviewed with the most basic government trivia. They do not know who controlled Congress or who Pelosi is, but they know all about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter. You could make the same video about members of another party as well, so it got me thinking; why are so many Americans (or any other nationality) ignorant about politics?

Is it because they are apathetic? Is the media doing a terrible job of presenting facts? More importantly, what can we do to solve or lessen this problem?

-

Last edited by Autobon on Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:00 pm; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:36 pm

Message

HogyMaster

Joined: 14 Dec 2011Posts: 951Location: Nar Shaddaa

Autobon wrote:

why are so many Americans (or any other nationality) so ignorant about politics?

Is it because they are apathetic?
Is the media doing a terrible job of presenting facts?
More importantly, what can we do to solve or lessen this problem?

Not apathetic, not really. People care, they just can't be bothered by politics. Strange combo of go with the flow, they know best+instinct+lack of personally studying politics+ idealism+ et cetera
I hate the media now days, I confess, their ethical code has become corrupted to a point of non existent. They present facts that they wanna present, not the whole picture. But still we can't blaim the media. It's not their job to get people interested in politics, or facts.
We can't solve or lessen this problem if we do not acknowledge that there is a problem. Understanding of politics, philosophy, religion are, and I hope, will remain a personal thing, not something WE can solve.

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:22 am

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1652

Well, seeing as Romney took a strong victory in the debate last night, do you think that Obama has more work to do if he wants to win a second term? Do you think his performance will improve in the next two debates, or will Romney win those as well?

Personally, I didn't think Obama was a shoe-in like everyone seemed to assume, so I definitely think this will hurt him. I think he may do better in the next debates but Romney will be consistently strong._________________Darth Vegas the unwise...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/03/what-political-scientists-know-about-debates/_________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:17 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751Location: Seattle, Washington

Jedi Joe wrote:

Well, seeing as Romney took a strong victory in the debate last night, do you think that Obama has more work to do if he wants to win a second term?

Romney crushed Obama last night, though no one was surprised about that. Obama had a difficult job defending against the cold hard reality of his failures as President. It was also a rare opportunity to correct the falsehoods that the media refuses to cover. The Obama administration was downplaying the significance of the debate beforehand for that very reason.

Also, don't forget that most supporters of this administration are going to downplay this event as well, in light of an Obama loss. They will write and share articles about how debates don't really affect polling, and so on. And maybe they are right. You can bet had Romney lost though, they would be shouting about his defeat across the rooftops. Double standard at its finest.

-

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:09 pm

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1652

Autobon wrote:

Also, don't forget that most supporters of this administration are going to downplay this event as well, in light of an Obama loss. They will write and share articles about how debates don't really affect polling, and so on. And maybe they are right. You can bet had Romney lost though, they would be shouting about his defeat across the rooftops. Double standard at its finest.

I have to say, the debate was really enjoyable. Many Americans finally saw Obama for who he was - a liar and an incompetent president. A CNN debate poll showed Romney winning 67% of the vote, the highest its ever been in almost 30 years!

Let me now share some quotes from our favorite die-hard liberals on Obama's performance last night. They are like music to the soul.

Andrew Sullivan (Daily Beast) - "How is Obama's closing statement so [expletive] sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight."